Nothing will evolve as long as sex exists to prevent it. Most mutations simply fail to implant in the uterus. Many are shed soon after. If the fetus gets to parturition ,the midwives get rid of it. Or the mother just eats them if they do not smell right. Typically in mammals there is constant chemical communication back and forth with the mother's immune system if any of the fetal clues are off even slightly the immune system disposes of it.Rh factor incompatibility is an example in humans. So any successful mutation has to be so small that the mother can not detect it.(The mother can tell if a small set of proteins are not acceptable) The mutation may not be lethal but the mother usually is. Selection of the fittest should have been phrased as selection of the most mediocre. That mandate has spawned the Sneaky Male phenomena from Red Deer to reptile.. That little difference in terms is attributed in some way to prejudice and self flattery of scientists mostly male at the time..
Sex is to prevent mutation not encourage it. Absolutely anything out of the ordinary is rejected during mating selection. Ova are very particular about which sperm gets to penetrate, it kills most suitors hence all the expendables . Perhaps the standards for mediocrity are very stringent often demanding insanely expensive demonstrations. I suppose any error in ornamentation signals other defects. Among humans you simply compare the number of live births with Known pregnancies. Most miscarriages may not even disrupt the mother enough to even know she was pregnant. I reared Rats and Rabbits in the lab and have seen the mothers sneakily dispose of offspring. If it becomes a pattern the mother gets discarded and we resume with more docile or accommodating females. It costs a lot to house these peculiar specimens. The truth is that no one appears to have a figure on the percentage wasted fertilizations. I reared Xenopus frogs from artificially fertilized eggs. Was fairly successful until I realized they were cannibalizing their siblings at a horrifying rate. So there are a lot of factors involved in the missing offspring. The sacrifice of siblings to cannibals seems very widespread and even intentional. There used to be a story of shark pups eating each other before they were even borne, I have no proof perhaps someone can tell if it was a fable. Some sharks have live births others use eggs Perhaps to reduce sibling predation, who knows why ; Its anyone's guess. Most mutations by necessity must be invisible. So turn the thinking around 180 degrees. The introduction of a new term VOID seems to simply be a NICHE. Is it necessary to use the new term?. Vladimyr Ivan Burachynsky PhD vbur...@shaw.ca 120-1053 Beaverhill Blvd. Winnipeg,Manitoba, R2J3R2 Canada (204) 2548321 Land (204) 8016064 Cell -----Original Message----- From: friam-boun...@redfish.com [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Nicholas Thompson Sent: May-12-11 10:34 PM To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' Subject: Re: [FRIAM] What evolves? Bruce, Suddenly can't think what the evidence would be for "most mutations are lethal." Given the tremendous capacity of the developmental system to absorb variation and produce a common result, how would we know. The best we could know is that most visible mutations are lethal. This is a brain fart, isn't it. Oh Dear. Nick -----Original Message----- From: friam-boun...@redfish.com [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Bruce Sherwood Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2011 8:44 PM To: friam@redfish.com Subject: [FRIAM] What evolves? I'll take a stab at Russ's question, "What's the analogous force (or other explanation) for void filling in evolution?" Dawkins presents what seemed to me a helpful way of seeing why mutations are usually lethal. He invents a multidimensional space in which a point represents a possible living creature, whose attributes are coordinates on each of the very large number of axes (e.g. length, mass, number of legs, etc.) He points out that this space is enormously empty, as most points represent creatures that are not viable. Moreover, any mutation that represents a big jump in this multidimensional space takes you to a point in that space representing a nonviable creature. Viable creatures are represented by clouds of neighboring points, surrounded by vast empty spaces. New species (to the extent that "species" is a meaningful term) to be viable will be near these clouds. If a cloud is densely occupied, a new species will most likely be found just outside the cloud, exploiting an until-now "void" but with only small changes from the attributes of existing creatures in this grouping. In this metaphor it seems to me that void-filling is "driven" essentially "entropically" -- to exploit a larger space. The analogy would be a gas confined in a small portion of a large empty box. Remove the barriers, and it looks to the observer as though the gas is "driven" to fill the void. But at a micro level all you see is molecules running around randomly, sometimes colliding with other molecules or the walls. According to mechanical laws, the gas could continue to occupy a small portion of the otherwise empty box, or return to such a configuration after making excursions. But there are so many more ways of arranging the molecules to exploit the entire space of the box that there is a crushingly large probability any time you look in the future of finding the box completely filled. In the process of this filling, it "looks" to the observer as though the gas is "driven" by some "force" to occupy the large space. But that's an illusion. Or you can I suppose define an equivalent "entropic force" doing the driving. Incidentally, when I only recently read The Origin of Species I was struck by how much ecology there is in the book. At one point Darwin specifically says that one of the largest influences driving the evolution of species is the other species in the environment. And the last few pages are a wonderfully lyrical paean to an ecological view of interacting organisms (his English river bank). Bruce Sherwood Russ Abbott russ.abbott at gmail.com Thu May 12 00:13:53 EDT 2011 Previous message: [FRIAM] What evolves? Next message: [FRIAM] What evolves? Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] Lots to respond to. First of all, Nick, why do you say I am discarding the distinction between living and non-living. I don't recall saying that. To Dave's point: By "fitness" I mean nothing more than 'void filling' ... There is no "process" anymore than there is a "process" when water in a flooding river 'fills voids' on the other side of the levee. That still leaves open the question of the scientific explanation for how voids are filled. Is there a physical force that produces that result? In the case of water going downhill, the force is gravity. What's the analogous force (or other explanation) for void filling in evolution? What's the scientific explanation for how it happens? *-- Russ Abbott* *_____________________________________________* *** Professor, Computer Science* * California State University, Los Angeles* * Google voice: 747-*999-5105 * blog: *http://russabbott.blogspot.com/ vita: http://sites.google.com/site/russabbott/ ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
